On Sun, 2003-04-06 at 14:09, Jean-Michel Dault wrote: > Le dim 06/04/2003 à 16:26, Stefan van der Eijk a écrit : > > I've written up on an issue with rpm dependencies in -devel packages. > > I'm not sure if the story is 100% accurate (I'm not a programmer), so if > > you've got a moment to spare, feel free to review it. > > Very interesting... > > It would solve also a lot of problems in complex applications with > conditional compiles. > > For example, php-gd can be linked with png, xpm, gif, and other graphic > formats, but some are optional. The usual way to find what's required is > to use the ./configure script, and check the output to see what it's > looking for, or check the m4 macros. > > Having to mandatory run a check on the include files would tell us > what's potentially needed to make the package. Of course, you should be > able to override this. > > For example, the zlib package can optionally include windows.h, which we > obviously lack ;-) Hence: > check-required-includes --exclude="windows.h" would grep the zlib > source, and return all needed .h files, except windows.h. RPM could then > add these files as BuildRequires. > > We could also, for -devel packages, have a check-provided-includes > script, that would add all .h and .so files to Provides. I wouldn't > bother with -static-devel, since very few packages need these. > > Thus, if we attempt to rebuild zlib without glibc-devel, rpm-build would > show that these requires are not met: > /usr/include/sys/types.h > /usr/include/sys/unistd.h > ... > /usr/include/stdio.h > > It's important that the requires are on full path, because, in the case > of types.h, many packages can provide this file, but you wouldn't want > it to be linked to dietlibc-devel (otherwise you'd override it). > > > http://eijk.homelinux.org/~stefan/rpm_devel_dependancies.html > > <http://eijk.homelinux.org/%7Estefan/rpm_devel_dependancies.html>
Stefan Quick look looks very nice. One minor point is that this is most accurate for src rpms... slightly less so for binary, but admittedly I haven't had a chance to really look into what it's saying in detail.. Seems well written too. Thanks. James > > Comments/flames welcome.
